8.4. SR 06-21-1993
ITEM 8.4.
'"'~ty of TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL I
~l . PAT KLAERS, CITY 1~~
I r FROM: RATOR
DATE: JUNE 16, 1993 . J
r
SUBJECT: WATER UTILITY DISCHARGE POND
The Water Utilities have requested that the City reconsider its
position on the discharge pond associated with the new well and
water treatment building in Orono Park (old E & 0 Tool land)
near the apartment complex. The Park and Recreation Commission
and city Council have both rejected the initial request from
the Water Utilities based on the location and appearance of the
discharge pond.
A factor related to this request includes the overall cost for
a storage tank in the water treatment building versus what it
would cost to construct a pond. The net savings to the
Utilities is anticipated to be approximately $60,000 if the
storage tank is not required and the pond can be constructed.
Another issue is the fact that a discharge pond is
environmentally appropriate as it replenishes the ground
water. However, if the building is constructed without a
storage tank, then the opportunity to treat this water and
recycle/reuse the water is essentially lost forever.
Another factor to consider is the fact that the water in the
storage tank underneath the building would be discharged into
the sewer system and there is a price associated with this
water flowing through our sanitary sewer system. This
discharge into the sewer system would end at sometime in the
future if the water is required to be treated. Treatment is
a federal government requirement and it may be up to five years
or more before we are required to add chlorination to the water
system. The water in the storage tank cannot be reused until
the water is treated and, until that time, the water would be
flushed into the sewer system. This sanitary sewer cost or
contribution to the water department is estimated at $25,000
per year until the water is treated and reused.
I advised the Utilities Superintendent, Bill Birrenkott, that
if the pond could be located in a less visible area of the park
and in an area that would not eliminate recreation
opportunities, then the pond proposal would see less opposition
from the staff. In this regard, I suggested that maybe the
pond could be located west of the apartments near the proposed
location for the water tower. According to the City Engineer
this can be accomplished and we are still looking at whether or
not the pond could be north or south of a proposed tower. We
will certainly try to locate the tower and pond in the very
northern part of this area of the park as close to the
apartment complex property line as possible. Please see the
P.o. Box 490 @ 13065 Orono Parkway e Elk River, MN 55330 $ (612) 441-7420 4) Fax: (612) 441-7425
attached sketches which show that the tower and pond may not
affect potential recreation opportunities in this vicinity.
You should note that the tower and pond can be pushed north and
that there are no firm plans for softball or baseball fields in
this area. These graphics are simply examples that show the
pond not interfering with recreation opportunities.
Based on this general location and the cost savings for the
Utilities, the Park and Recreation Commission indicated that
they had no problems if this pond was constructed and fenced-in
in a safe manner. Staff concurs with this recommendation.
Terry Maurer will be in attendance at this meeting and can help
address this issue in terms of location of the pond and the
pros and cons of a pond recharging the ground water versus a
storage tank and future reuse of this water.
/'
:..J
~,,'" I
,,/
../- ,
../'/ /\
1',,; // ~..,
/ ./ ../ ".eo ·
/// // c,J.~ 'V ~ I
/'" ~"* '/ I
e L~~~' \
~~~ ~ ~..~ .
. ..., , d") 0 .t- ..
0" " ~.... ./ ..,. ~ eJ>' · /'" . .
4.' /' /",&.4 tr~q /'
& 0 ..;~ / (.:I ;( . ,,/ I
~ I / lO~O ~ I
....""" ...L./ <'0 0 (, f., Ii:! ..
.r P" "'~ )(. '< -ev0 /
..... vel " ..
h'/'~~~
:? (" I!"J.~,,"/
cf "
~~
~
~
/'
,
I
1
I=nd \/ Z · :1:. ~ t;;)
2.?' +,.. e.Q!.t+ o~
W e~ Ed,j eo ~ 2>;+.
\Y2
~
r-:
\j)
'\
~
-
-
~-----t
~ _...._~-
"c:.. \ -r y
PARe. EL"
1
")
)
~~. -
o~ """;$ L;"e. = p:t. t::> tJ,.o.. -r 6 \ ~ Z. '2 4 \ '5
S1nLC,-r 'Z. o~ Z For ~et"'O.Se. labu\Q....:olll'\
E: : . T ~;I: o~ ~..1. 1.,.,+ e. ~e e.p......~ <<'-'" .. r... e ~ f!A') +' e:.. ~ 0
or -T -r.... Q G + p \... U ~ ""-00 ~ "'" "",0." -t -r rOC. + ..
d f! .s.c:,... - A. ~~...... . n ~ S, ..
_ ~c:.o4: / e ~ 0 ~
6<::>od
.. ~Qn
p&"
C.l: ~ 1<:'27
)
J
_ ft
~~~-
~~ "--'
~J::....UJ~~ <:
'l
Ii
~ Ac' r
. t,,*~
...tp -,A ~::,
\'kW
l-
W
W
~
J-
U1
>-
et:
<(
LJ
fPU^Pl
~
o
\tELL
APARTMENTS
PARKING
AREA
BACKV!\SH
PONJ
100 FT
t
v
UJ
w
>
I--t
0:::
o
W
I-
<
>
I--f
n:::
D-
G
- .---
PROPOSED ATHLETIC FIELDS
FOR E & 0 AREA
r:::l
L::J
<<rv00
o <( \: \-'"
~000 0 'b
<(49 ~ 't> ~
0<<- ~-\ ·
<( ~<v<<-
((<p
<
w
Ct::
<
C)
z
........
~
0::
<
0...
ORONO ROAD
I
to ! q3)
/"
(PU\Pl
~
o
\/ELL
APARTf'\ENTS
B^CKVASH
POl'll
l~VJ FT
t
~
to
w
>
t--f
a:
o
w
I-
<
>
f-I
cr::
CL
PROPOSED ATHLETIC FIELDS
A
\::J
8ACKVASH
PDf"JO
FEET
280
& 0 AREA
FOR E
r-
w
W
0::
r-
(f)
>-
0:::
<(
LJ
NG
P ARI<
AREA
~ \ (,.\-- OS
~~O?\)SE.-Q
~ \) I-
~\)~ 'G- ~
0''< I.L
?,?-\)~'E.-\- ·
(S)
aJ
N
ORONO ROAD
1/92
DRAFT
Gf0
FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
I
I 1/ S~ c:H"'..E:X
: ~ 0
~
a
00
(;)q:?
o
Concept unde= review by
Park .and Recreation Commission.
o
o ....... c:J
.._ov
~
...~
l0-
W
~
l-
l.t:I
>-
~
Q
a~ (;) 0
1\::J 0
o
o 0
LAKE ORONO
AREA MAP
f.!j 0
o 0
Ie
I
I
~
,:::1
~ <
~ :..J
.- ~
....
~ '~
:; '/
.. <:I
lOI( ~
:,:
~
<
U\KE ORONO
2
\
\0
10
f
I
/0
I
/ C
n..1UE ~ CDG'Dt
F1~
"V\"UII"I: ... UoQ
J
o
F^rR~roo p~r!'G
~",.,.. IWJ
~ c::I.I"'S
VftII ~.......
~ p~.,
e (;) 0 c::J (:)
(
1/92
DRAFT
lT2J
FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Long range concept plan to
be reviewed by City Park and
Recreation Commission.
-J
~
r-
~ <
~ ~
Q
~ ,-
..
; ~
a ~
~ ...
<
l4.
o
00
(;:) %0
o
o
o 00.... 0
._0
~
~
l-
\.W
~
I-
U')
>-
~
Q
o (;:)~o 0
j -1 o~ 0
o 0
LAKE ORONO
AREA (~AP
o 0
o 0
o
o 0
SCF113AW.. ~-=:x
?"! E:!..!J
I .~ K!:"" ORC!\. Ie
_1""\ L.- '..' ( '\~
3
F^ IRGRa..tO ?~I N3
~ ~,. .....a
~ c::J..f"'S
.,1M ~~
~p~y
00000
(